Loading ITAT cases…
435 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that bonus shares are issued from capitalization of existing reserves and do not result in an increase in shareholder wealth. Therefore, Section 56(2)(vii)(c) is not applicable to bonus shares.
The Tribunal found that the AO had applied his mind and made appropriate inquiries regarding the cash deposits. The AO's conclusion, which allowed for some cash in hand and treated a portion as unexplained, was deemed plausible and not erroneous per se. Therefore, the revisional action of the Pr.CIT was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order had directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA. The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI, if deposited after the statutory due date, is not allowable as a deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
For corporate charges, the ITAT admitted additional evidence and set aside the matter to the TPO for de novo consideration, who later deleted the addition after finding the TP study in order. For technical know-how fees, the ITAT followed a coordinate bench's order and remanded the issue to the AO/TPO for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer, following a previous Tribunal order on a similar matter. The AO was directed to re-examine the taxability of payments considering the 'make available' clause of the Indo-US tax treaty and the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that Section 36(1)(ii) was not applicable as the director was a minority shareholder and the commission payment would not have been available as profit or dividend to him. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions that allowed commission paid to directors.
The Tribunal held that the issue required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer, following a previous Tribunal order on a similar matter. The AO was directed to re-examine the taxability of payments considering the 'make available' clause of the Indo-US tax treaty and the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct independent inquiries regarding the genuineness of the transaction, the fair market value of the debentures, and the creditworthiness of the subscribers rendered the assessment order erroneous. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was therefore upheld.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 to a non-existent entity after amalgamation is bad in law. The CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment order on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not bad in law due to lack of notice. It also upheld the disallowance of depreciation on electricity installations as they were not integral to plant and machinery. Regarding creditors, the Tribunal deleted additions for two creditors but sustained the addition for one creditor due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening proceedings were justified as the assessee had not filed a return and participated in the proceedings, the addition made by the AO was not justified. The AO failed to verify the assessee's claim of receiving funds from his father, who had sold trees.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that there was no effective representation for the assessee before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that while the accounting treatment might be debatable, it did not cause prejudice to the revenue as the expenses were claimed only once. The twin conditions for Section 263 (erroneous order and prejudice to revenue) were not met.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erroneously concluded that the AO did not offer adverse comments on the assessee's reconciliation, as the AO was not specifically asked to do so. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI, if not deposited by the statutory due date, is not allowable as a deduction, even if deposited before the return filing date. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The issue regarding the due date for deposit of ESI/EPF contributions was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The issue regarding the due date for deposit of ESI/EPF contributions was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The issue regarding the due date for deposit of ESI/EPF contributions was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeals, rather than dismissing them outright. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for not affording this opportunity.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the assessee to seek restoration if a consequential order is passed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's claim that the appeals involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of legislation was unfounded. The appeals dealt with the issue of delayed deposit of ESI and PF contributions as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, not a constitutional challenge.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal. It followed a coordinate bench's decision which held that income from let-out property should be taxed under 'income from house property' when the business is no longer active.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's claim that the appeals involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of legislation was incorrect. The appeals dealt with the issue of delayed deposit of ESI and PF contributions as a valid deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, not a constitutional challenge.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not pay the tax for the VSVS declaration, it should be treated as non-est. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in contravention of natural justice due to illusory opportunities granted to the assessee. The CIT(A)'s refusal to admit additional evidence was also unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not pertain to the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no corroborative material was brought on record to support the alleged advances.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not pertain to the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no corroborative material was brought on record to support the alleged advances.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for AY 2015-16 was void ab initio because the assessment year was covered under Section 153A due to the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal without considering its merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeals, rather than dismissing them outright. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for not affording this opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's claim that the appeals involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of legislation was incorrect. The appeals dealt with the issue of delayed deposit of ESI and PF contributions as a valid deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, not a constitutional challenge.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow TDS credit of INR 4,26,15,724 as it was duly reflected in Form 26AS for AY 2018-19. For the remaining INR 24,68,320, the issue was restored to the AO for verification to ensure no double claim of TDS credit was made.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was invalid because no notice under Section 153C was issued or served on the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that EDC charges are not in the nature of duty, tax, cess, or fee, and therefore, Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is not applicable. The disallowance made by the AO was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).